Re: CHAT: browsers

En réponse à Tristan <kesuari@...>:

>
> When I get around to buying everything I need and having enough money
> to
> move out of home, I might think about it ;)
>
Please hurry then ;)) .

>
> Really? I'm amazed. If America *or*[1] Britain decided to have their
> own
> official spellings (and changed a few) I doubt we'd adopt them.
>
The thing is that the position of the different countries as for French is not
egalitarian like you have with English-speaking countries. France stays the
example to follow. Britain doesn't have the same status at all.

> [1]: Why can't we have an unambiguous, well-known word for xor?
>
either... or...

>
> And anyway: I'm after a powerless president. Why would I want that
> position? (Hmm... a highly paid (incl. accommodation, servents etc.)
> bludge job (only responsibility is to be at the right place at the
> right
> time)... of *course* I want it, what am I thinking!)
>
LOL.

>
> Is a Mayor a position of power in Holland?
As much as a referee in a football (note for American readers: I'm referring to
*real* football, the one where you play with your feet only on the ball, never
your hands ;))) ): no power of political decision by himself, only the power to
make sure that the municipal council follows the rules. And he is the PR of a
town. In Holland people don't get political power. Only groups do. That's the
essence of the Polder model, that and the idea of constant negociation.

 I'm none too keen on
> positions of power being unelected.
>
Me neither. But come to think of it, I'm not keen on positions of power being
elected either. I'm not keen on positions of power for one single person at
all. I'm not keen on concentration of power in the hands of a single person.

>
> Hmm... well... A Prime Minister can appoint people, regardless of
> whether he's elected in or not.
? Of course, but what the Prime Minister does is not an election.

 Collectively, Ministers can appoint
> people, regardless of whether they're elected in or not.
Because ministers don't hold elections. They hold meetings where they discuss
of things.

 Collectively,
> a
> Government can appoint people, regardless of whether they're elected
> in
> or not.
But a government is the ministers's council. A minister's council doesn't hold
votes. They discuss of things to do, or people to nominate for a position.
That's no election.

 But all those are of one mind, so an election would have the
> same result.
Indeed. The point is that they don't do elections anyway.

 A Parliament, on the other hand, elect things, because a
> Paliament is of differing minds.
And elects people.

It seems that you actually agree with me on the difference between being
appointed and elected.

 Would you consider a situation where
> the Government appointed the Head of State to be a Republic?
Not really. To me, "Republic" really means that the Head of State must be
elected, directly by the people or not.

 If not,
> what would you call it?
>
A difficult case. I don't think we have a word for it. "Republic" is used for
this kind of things (after the system that was used in many "People's
Republics") but I always thought that it was an abuse of the word. As soon as
the Head of State isn't elected anymore (whether directly or indirectly though
their representatives, whether it is a Parliament or an Electoral College) by
the people, it's not a Republic anymore. I guess we have a true lexical gap
here ;))) .

Mind you, if the Head of State is powerless, it may not be a bad idea to have
him/her appointed rather than elected. A powerless figurehead wouldn't attract
many people to vote anyway (powerful ones attract people to vote difficultly
already!). And that wouldn't change whether the system is democratic anymore.
Democracy is about who holds the power, not how the head of state is chosen
(which is why "republic" is of the same class as words
like "monarchy", "oligarchy", "thearchy", but not among the class of words
like "democracy", "dictature", "ploutocracy", "theocracy". The first are about
how you call the head of state - and how in general the institutions will work -
 and the second is about who has the power. The two can correlate, but not
necessarily).

Christophe.

http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr

Take your life as a movie: do not let anybody else play the leading role.

Reply